1 Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1941; 2^d ed., Oxford, 1952; 3^d ed., Notre Dame, 1983). All subsequent references are to the third edition, hereafter SBMA. The author wishes to thank Signer, Michael A., Wawrykow, Joseph P., Gross-Diaz, Theresa, Ann Matter, E., and de Visscher, Eva for their thoughtful and generous comments on, and contributions to, aspects of this article.Google Scholar

2 MS London, St. Paul's 2, catalogued by Ker, N. R., Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries , 1. London (Oxford, 1969).Google Scholar

3 “A Commentary on the Hebraica by Herbert of Bosham,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 18 (1951): 29–65.Google Scholar

4 SBMA, 365–66.Google Scholar

5 Hugh was thus acclaimed by various authors extracted in the Veterum aliquot scriptorum de Hugone Victorino testimonia, including Johannes Trithemius, the fifteenth-century author of De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, who wrote: “Hugo, presbyter et monachus S. Victoris Parisiensis, ordinis canonicorum regularium Augustini, et abbas ut ferunt ibidem, natione Saxo, vir in divinis Scripturis eruditissimus, et in saeculari philosophia nulli priscorum inferior, qui velut alter Augustinus doctor celeberrimus suo tempore est habitus, ingenio subtilis, et ornatus eloquio, nec minus conversatione quam eruditione venerandus” (PL 175:166D).Google Scholar

6 Exégèse Médiévale: Les quatre sens de l'Écriture , 4 vols. (Paris, 1959–64). De Lubac makes frequent, and generally critical, references to Smalley throughout all four volumes of this work. See especially, in volume one of the second part, the chapter “Une Lignée Hieronymienne?” for his critique of Smalley's assessment of the role of philology as an aspect of scientific exegesis, and “Hugues de Saint-Victor” and “L'École victorine” where he engages Smalley on the functional relationship between spiritual and literal exegesis in the works of Hugh, Richard, and Andrew of Saint Victor.Google Scholar

7 A brief canvass of Smalley's statements, drawn from various points in her career, illustrates her use of Aquinas as a yardstick. See, e.g., “Stephen Langton and the Four Senses of Scripture,” Speculum 6 (1931): 60–76; “A Commentary,” 63; and SBMA, 101, on Hugh of Saint Victor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Cassiodorus, in the preface to his Explanation of the Psalms, evokes this topos repeatedly. Commending the Psalter as a book of Christian prophecy, he quotes Origen, : “Prophecy is the sweet utterance which combines the honeycombs of heavenly teaching with the sweet honey of divine eloquence” ( Cassiodorus: Explanation of the Psalms, 2, Psalms 51–100 , trans. Walsh, P. G., Ancient Christian Writers, 51 [New York, 1990], 27).Google Scholar

9 On the challenges posed to twelfth-century exegetes by Scripture's symbolic and metaphorical language, M. D. Chenu wrote: “The most constant and not least disconcerting characteristic of the symbol was its polysemousness. So essential a characteristic was this that to constrict its meaning for the sake of conceptual clarity would have been to sterilize it, to kill its vitality” ( Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century , trans. Taylor, Jerome and Little, Lester K. [Toronto, 1997], 136).Google Scholar

10 SBMA, 300. See also Minnis, A. J., who hails this advance in The Medieval Theory of Authorship (Aldershot, 1988), 73–117.Google Scholar

11 ST 1a.1.10, resp.; see also “Proemium,” Exposition of the Psalms of David. Google Scholar

12 ST 1a.1.9, reply obj. 2; ST 1a.1.10, reply obj. 1. On the indivisibility of the literal and spiritual meanings of the two testaments, Thomas argues further: “Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal and presupposes it” (ST 1a. 1.10, resp.).Google Scholar

13 Exégèse Médiévale 2.2, 293. Cf. Minnis, , Medieval Theory of Authorship, 75–84.Google Scholar

14 “Prophecies however are sometimes said of things which were of the time then, but not principally said of those things, but insofar as they are a figure of future things; and therefore the Holy Spirit ordained that when such things were said, we should infer things that exceed the condition of the event, so that our attention might be raised to that which is prefigured” (Thomas Aquinas, “Proemium,” Expositions of the Psalms of David). An illustration used by both Augustine and Aquinas is the interpretation of Psalm 72 [71]: some things said there about Solomon are clearly “true” in their historical sense while others (especially the claim that he ruled from “sea to sea”) can only be understood as having been fulfilled by Christ.Google Scholar

15 “The Bible in the Medieval Schools,” in Cambridge History of the Bible , 2. The West from the Fathers to the Reformation, ed. Lampe, G. W. H. (Cambridge, 1969), 214.Google Scholar

16 Richard of Victor, Saint, De emmanuele (PL 196:601–66). See the discussion in SBMA, 157–63.Google Scholar

17 Andrew was not uncritically accepting of Jewish exegesis, as has been demonstrated by both Signer, Michael A. (“De doctrina Christiana and the Exegesis of Andrew of Saint Victor,” in Reading and Wisdom: The De doctrina christiana of Augustine in the Middle Ages,” ed. English, Edward D. [Notre Dame, 1995], 92) and Rainer Berndt (“L'Influence de Rashi sur l'exégèse d'André de Saint-Victor,” in Rashi Studies, ed. Steinfeld, Zwi Arie [Bar-Ilan, 1993], vii–xiv).Google Scholar

18 Smalley, Beryl, “William of Auvergne, John of La Rochelle, and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Old Law,” in St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274–1974: Commemorative Studies , ed. Maurer, Armand, 2 vols. (Toronto, 1974), 2:11–71.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., 52.Google Scholar

20 Ibid., 67.Google Scholar

21 Ibid.Google Scholar

22 “Surplus of meaning” is Paul Ricoeur's term for the communicative power of metaphor in poetic and prophetic language. See his “Speaking and Writing,” Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, 1976), 25–44 and Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics (Philadelphia, 1980), passim.Google Scholar

23 Smalley, , “The Old Law,” 55.Google Scholar

24 Lubac, De, Exégèse Médiévale , 2.2, 294.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., 295.Google Scholar

26 Smalley, , “The Old Law,” 56.Google Scholar

27 For discussion of Herbert's life and career as an exegete, see Smalley, Beryl, “A Commentary” (n. 3 above), 29–65, the second and third editions of her The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, 1978), and her The Becket Conflict and the Schools (Totowa, N.J., 1973). See also Loewe, Raphael, “Herbert of Bosham's Commentary on Jerome's Hebrew Psalter,” Biblica 34 (1953): 44–77, 159–92, 275–98, and Goodwin, Deborah L., “A Study of Herbert of Bosham's Psalms Commentary (c. 1190)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 2001).Google Scholar

28 See Smalley, , “A Commentary” (n. 3 above), 42–44, for a comparison of the dedicatory letter which prefaces Herbert's commentary with Andrew's prologue to his commentary on the Book of Isaiah. She argues that the verbal parallels between the two works indicate a strong connection between the two writers.Google Scholar

29 MS St. Paul's 2 (n. 2 above).Google Scholar

30 The question is currently being investigated by me and by Eva de Visscher, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Leeds.Google Scholar

31 Gross-Diaz, Theresa, The Psalms Commentary of Gilbert of Poitiers: From Lectio Divina to the Lecture Room (Leiden, 1996), 148.Google Scholar

32 The epistles and the first half of the Psalter are in Trinity College Cambridge MSS B 5, 6, 7 and B 5.4; the second half of the Psalter is in Bodleian Library MS Auct. E infra 6.Google Scholar

33 SBMA, 170–71.Google Scholar

34 See Herbert's disclaimers in his dedicatory letter to Peter of Arras, published by Smalley, “A Commentary” (n. 3 above), 32.Google Scholar

35 On history as the foundation of biblical study, see Hugh of Saint Victor, Didascalicon de studio legendi , ed. Buttimer, Charles (Washington, D.C., 1939), 6.4.Google Scholar

36 Smalley, , The Becket Conflict , 84–85.Google Scholar

37 For a discussion of Aquinas's appropriation and refinement of Augustine's scriptural hermeneutics, see Wawrykow, Joseph P., “Reflections on the Place of the De doctrina christiana in High Scholastic Discussions of Theology,” in Reading and Wisdom (n. 17 above), 99–125.Google Scholar

38 De Scripturis et scriptoribus sacris praenotatiunculae , 3 (PL 175:12A): “Prima expositio est historica, in qua consideratur prima verborum significatio ad res ipsas de quibus agitur … ut dicatur historia sensus qui primo loco ex significatione verborum habetur ad res.” See also Didascalicon 6.8–11.Google Scholar

39 Zinn, Grover, “History and Interpretation: ‘Hebrew Truth,’ Judaism, and the Victorine Exegetical Tradition,” in Jews and Christians: Exploring the Past, Present and Future , ed. Charlesworth, James H. (New York, 1990), 110. See also idem, “Hugh of Saint Victor's De Scripturis et scriptoribus sacris as an accessus Treatise for the Study of the Bible,” Traditio 52 (1997): 111–34.Google Scholar

40 “Only by first understanding fully what the word, as word, signifies (a person, place, deed, or the like) can a person then advance to the next stage to ascertain the deeper meaning which is signified by the thing that is signified by the word…. Hugh wants to focus on the need to recover a sense of the reality of ‘deeds done in time’ as the key foundation for all exegesis and, indeed, all theology” (Zinn, Grover A. Jr., “The Influence of Augustine's De doctrina christiana upon the Writings of Hugh of Saint Victor,” in Reading and Wisdom [n. 17 above], 56). “Middle term” is Zinn's phrase (ibid.).Google Scholar

41 Examples are found in his discussion of Psalm 71 [72]: there, David prophesies events which, as literal prophecy, concern his son Solomon but which, in Herbert's view, may be said “more congruously” of Jesus Christ (fol. 81v^a).Google Scholar

42 Smalley, , “A Commentary” (n. 3 above), 58.Google Scholar

43 In her later reflections on Aquinas's hermeneutic of the literal sense, Smalley mused on the limitations of her previous formulation: “By what rules should the exegete judge whether a text which had been traditionally interpreted as a prophecy of Christ belonged to the literal sense or the allegorical? What limits should he set to the prophet's foresight? St. Thomas gave no guidance here” (“The Old Law” [n. 18 above], 56).Google Scholar

44 Theresa Gross-Diaz notes Nicholas of Lyra's similar practice, which helped me spot the parallel in Herbert, in “What's a Good Soldier to Do?: Scholarship and Revelation in the Postills on the Psalms,” in Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture , ed. Krey, Philip D. W. and Smith, Lesley, Studies in the History of Christian Thought, 90 (Leiden, 2000), 111–28.Google Scholar

45 “Quae quidem tunc obscure dicta, nunc re completa manifestata sunt” (Psalm 117, MS fol. 135v). His statement paraphrases Augustine's tractate 101 on John's Gospel: “Nunc ergo quod illis tunc obscurum fuit, et mox manifestum est, jam nobis utique manifestum est.” Likewise, one hears an echo of Hugh of Saint Victor, Didascalicon, 6.6: “Unde consequens est, ut Novum Testamentum, in quo manifesta praedicatur veritas, in hac lectione Veteri praeponatur, ubi eadem veritas figuris adumbrata occulte praenuntiatur. Eadem utrobique veritas, sed ibi occulta, hic manifesta; ibi promissa, hic exhibita.” Google Scholar

46 Moore, Rebecca, “The Jews in World History according to Hugh of Saint Victor,” Medieval Encounters 3 (1997): 1–19, at 19.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., 7.Google Scholar

48 SBMA, 362.Google Scholar

49 The phrase is Augustine's, from his Tractatus adversus Iudaeos (PL 42:56). For a discussion of the impact of Augustine's conception of the Jews' role in history, see Cohen, Jeremy, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of Jews in Medieval Christianity (Berkeley, 1999).Google Scholar

50 MS at Pss. 23:1 and 71:18, folios 26v and 82r.Google Scholar

51 No twelfth-century manuscript of Rashi's Psalms commentary survives today. Analysis of the relationship of Herbert's commentary to its possible sources is greatly complicated by the fragmented history of Rashi's text and other medieval Hebrew commentaries, lexica, etc. Later manuscripts and early printed editions of Rashi's commentary vary widely from thirteenth-century manuscripts, the earliest versions available to modern editors. Raphael Loewe has suggested that Herbert's text of Rashi's commentary may have been a fuller version than those that survive, or may have already begun to accrue additions and interpolations. Likewise, material once present in Rashi's original version might have been excised by later commentators. See “Herbert of Bosham's Commentary” (n. 27 above), 60–61. In this study, I have used the recent edition by Gruber, Mayer I., Rashi's Commentary on Psalms 1–89 (Books I–III) (Atlanta, 1998). For a history of the commentary's textual transmission, see ibid., 37–42.Google Scholar

52 Rashi's pattern of citation often reflected the rabbinical hermeneutic of gezerah shavah, whereby a word used in one biblical context is explained by invoking the word's use in a different context, with the understanding that the reference then incorporates the whole of the secondary context. Thus if Rashi explains a seldom-used Hebrew term in Psalms by invoking its use in Balaam's predictions against Edom in Numbers or Isaiah's prophecies against Idumea, then we can assume that he intends his readers to understand the passage in the psalm as an anti-Edomite (that is, anti-Christian) statement. On gezerah shavah, see Strack, H. L. and Stemberger, G., Introduction to Talmud and Midrash , trans. Bockmuehl, Markus (Edinburgh, 1991), 23, and Loewe, Raphael, “Herbert of Bosham's Commentary” (n. 27 above), 182–83.Google Scholar

53 Or peshuto shel miqra. Kamin, Sarah, “Rashi's Exegetical Categorization with Respect to the Distinction between Peshat and Derash,” Immanuel 11 (1980): 16–32. See also Signer, Michael A., “Rashi as Narrator,” in Rashi et la culture juive en France du Nord au moyen âge, ed. Nahon, G. and Touati, C. (Paris-Louvain, 1997), 103–10.Google Scholar

54 Signer, Michael A., “King/Messiah: Rashi's Exegesis of Psalm 2,” Prooftexts 3 (1983): 273–84; see also Gruber, , Rashi's Commentary, 54–55 n. 6, 394 n. 19, 413 n. 43.Google Scholar

55 Specifically at Psalms 2, 21, 45, 72, and 110. See Smalley, , “A Commentary” (n. 3 above), 57.Google Scholar

56 See the example cited and transcribed by Loewe, Raphael, drawn from Herbert's commentary on Psalm 88 (89):52 in “Herbert of Bosham's Commentary” (n. 27 above), 68.Google Scholar

57 On Rashi and other twelfth-century Jewish exegetes who pursued this goal, see Signer, Michael A., “God's Love for Israel: Apologetic and Hermeneutical Strategies in Twelfth-Century Biblical Exegesis,” in Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century Europe , ed. Signer, Michael A. and Engen, John Van (Notre Dame, 2001), 123–49. See also Signer, Michael A., “King/Messiah,” 273–84. Surprisingly little has been written about the overall message of Rashi's Psalms commentary. Esra Shereshevsky has suggested that the commentary was written with knowledge of, and in response to, Christian Psalms commentaries, specifically that attributed to Jerome, (“Rashi's and Christian Interpretations,” Jewish Quarterly Review 61 [1970–71]: 76–86). This view was not supported by Sarah Kamin, whose penetrating studies have done much to explicate Rashi's exegetical methods. See especially her “Affinities between Jewish and Christian Exegesis in Twelfth-Century Northern France,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies , ed. Goshen-Gottstein, M. and Assaf, D. (Jerusalem, 1988), 154 n. 49, and eadem, “Rashi's Exegetical Categorization.” See also van der Heide, A., “Rashi's Biblical Exegesis: Recent Research and Developments,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 41 (1984): 292–318, for a useful review of literature and debate surrounding Rashi's methods.Google Scholar

58 Signer, , “Rashi as Narrator,” 106.Google Scholar

59 On the polysemous nature of midrash and its “elastic” boundaries, see Kugel, James, “Two Introductions to Midrash,” in Midrash and Literature , ed. Hartman, Geoffrey H. and Budick, Sanford (New Haven, 1986), 77–103.Google Scholar

60 Midrash Tehillim was a relatively late compilation of rabbinical commentary on the psalms; one theory suggests that it may not have reached the form now preserved in printed traditions until the thirteenth century (Strack, and Stemberger, , Introduction to Talmud and Midrash , 350–52).Google Scholar

61 Signer, Michael A., “King/Messiah,” passim.Google Scholar

62 These are themes explicitly stated in Rashi's exegesis of Pss. 26, 45, 46–48, 59, and 68.Google Scholar

63 Rashi's commentary on Pss. 16, 22, 25, 31, 36, 37, 40, 49, 59, and 62 offer examples.Google Scholar

64 See Rashi on Pss. 11, 20, 21, 42, 43, 50, and 66.Google Scholar

65 See Rashi on Pss. 9, 10, 22, 25, 29, 53, 59, 66, and 69.Google Scholar

66 Trans. Gruber, , Rashi's Commentary (n. 51 above), 72. The bracketed interpolations are his.Google Scholar

67 “In Rashi's exegetical framework, Scripture and the Rabbis constitute a single world. Therefore, one may derive the meaning of one from the other. His commentaries fuse rabbinic literature and the Hebrew Bible into a seamless text. At the same time, they insist upon discovering the Peshuto shel Miqra, bringing out the plain meaning of the biblical text in a narrative order that reduces the number of rabbinic midrashim relevant to a specific passage in Scripture” (Signer, Michael A., “How the Bible Has Been Interpreted in Jewish Tradition,” in New Interpreter's Bible [Nashville, 1994], 1:74).Google Scholar

68 See Cohen's, Jeremy foundational article, “Scholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy: The Study and Evaluation of Judaism in European Christendom,” American Historical Review 91 (1986): 592–613, as well as his recent Living Letters of the Law (n. 49 above).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 Cohen, Gerson D., “Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought,” in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies , ed. Altman, Alexander (Cambridge, 1967), 19–48.Google Scholar

70 Martyr, Justin, The Dialogue with Trypho 63.4; 84.3 (trans. Lukyn Williams, A. [London, 1930]).Google Scholar

71 E.g., Augustine, , Enarrationes in Psalmos 45:17: “‘God’ then was ‘anointed’ for us, and sent unto us; and God Himself was man, in order that He might be ‘anointed’: but He was man in such a way as to be God still. He was God in such a way as not to disdain to be man. ‘Very man and very God’; in nothing deceitful, in nothing false, as being everywhere true, everywhere ‘the Truth’ itself. God then is man; and it was for this cause that ‘God’ was ‘anointed,’ because God was Man, and became ‘Christ.’” Google Scholar

72 Trans. Gruber, , Rashi's Commentary (n. 51 above), 214.Google Scholar

73 MS at Ps. 44:8 (fol. 47v^b): “Verum in hoc amoris cantico excecate et misere synagoge conpaciens; satis nequeo odium admirari. que regis nostri messie odio scripturam quasi evangelicam; vertit sic et intervertit. Aut quia nolunt nostro. suo messie quem adhuc regem magnum et sanctum venturum expectant. hanc tam manifestam scripturam cur non adaptant; O livor pertinax semper sanctum persequens. Messie regi nostro amoris hoc canticum dare nolunt; et suo adimunt.” Google Scholar

74 MS at Ps. 44:8 (fol. 47v^b): “Quod tamen magnus ille synagoge alumpnus quodam inter litteratores legis emulator vehementissimus. ad regem nostrum ecclesie sponsum messiam referendum; aperte docet dicens sic.” Google Scholar

75 MS at Ps. 44:15 (fol. 49r^a). We know from a thirteenth-century Jewish source, the Sefer Nizzahon, that the meaning of Zech. 8:23 was disputed in Jewish and Christian polemical texts. The author of Sefer Nizzahon wrote: “[after first discussing Zech. 8:20–22] … The heretics explain this is a reference to Jesus, who sat in Jerusalem and whom the nations sought so that they could follow him in their error. The answer is in the adjoining verse, as it is written, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts: In those days ten men from all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the edge of a Jew's garment, saying, We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.' The verse thus testifies that they will come to the God of the Jews and not of the Christians, that it is referring to our God in heaven, and it embodies a prophecy concerning the end of days” (Berger, David, ed. and trans., The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus [Philadelphia, 1979], 125–26).Google Scholar

76 From MS at Ps. 86:4 (fol. 102r^a): “Adeo eciam quod exortantes se invicem et explorantes qui sint de israelitis et dominum scientibus; adducent in ierusalem; offerentes eos quasi donum domino. Iuxta quod scriptum est Et adducent omnes fratres vestros de cunctis donum domino [Isa. 66:20] Et alibi. In diebus illis in quibus apprehendent fimbriam viri judei dicentes Ibimus vobiscum. Audivimus enim quod deus vobiscum est [Zech. 8:23]. Judei; istud sub messia suo expectavit futurum. Ecclesiatici vero iam vident per christum et per apostolos ex parte impletum; in fine vero conplendum quando omnis israel salvabitur….” Google Scholar

77 Herbert writes at Ps. 117 [118]:29 (fol. 136v^a-b): “Quam sit insulsa quam disserta ista quam prosecuti sumus super psalmum istum secundum hebreos exposicio in qua messias tollitur eciam tardo manifestum. Quam vero lapida quam consona. Quam aperta sit si messias interseratur prophecia; psalmi maxime ultima iudicant. Ubi dicit ‘Lapis quem repro’ et cetera. huius profecto lapidis virtutem melius quam phariseus in lege edoctus; piscator simplex sensit et ennarravit dicens Ad quem accedentes lapidem vivum ab hominibus quidem reprobatum. a deo autem electum et honorificatum. [1 Pet. 2:4] Et infra vobis quasi credentibus honor. Non credentibus autem. Lapis quem reprobaverat edificantes. hic factus est in caput anguli. [1 Pet. 2:7] Solet queri; si qua tangatur hystoria cum dicitur lapidem quem repro. et cetera. Ego vero notens adinvencionum quorundam nenias scribere. sed pocius velut fabulosa preterire. dico non hiis verbis historiam tangi; sed per hystoriam methaphoricam de messia sic prophetatum esse. Et dicitur hic historice messias lapis; sicut alibi in psalmo populus israel hystorice per methaforam vinea appellatur ibi. Vineam de egypto transtulisti. [Ps. 79 (80)]. Et vinea mea domus israel est.” Google Scholar

78 Moore, Rebecca, Jews and Christians in the Life and Thought of Hugh of St Victor (Atlanta, 1998), 134; eadem, “The Jews in World History” (n. 46 above).Google Scholar

79 Especially perhaps against the background of recent events like the massacres at Blois and the expulsion of Jews from France's royal domain.Google Scholar

80 Cohen, , “Esau as Symbol” (n. 69 above).Google Scholar

81 See Rosenthal's, E. I. J. analysis of medieval exegetes, Jewish, “Anti-Christian Polemic in Medieval Bible Commentaries,” Journal of Jewish Studies 11 (1960): 115–35.Google Scholar

82 Whether Rashi makes overt reference to the Rhineland massacres in his Psalms commentary is a disputed question. See Gruber, , Rashi's Commentary (n. 51 above), “Introduction,” 5, for references to positions for and against. Also see Rashi on Ps. 47:10, where he refers to kiddush ha-shem, “sanctification of the name” or martyrdom. Likewise, the theme of scholars willing to give their lives in defense of the Torah, discussed below, might be derived from Rashi's own background as a student in the Rhineland, where later the leaders of the yeshivot were murdered. As the “S” chronicler of the destruction of Mainz wrote, “On that very day the crown of Israel fell. Then the students of Torah fell and the scholars disappeared. The honor of the Torah fell” (Chazan, Robert, European Jewry and the First Crusade [Berkeley, 1987], 204).Google Scholar

83 In his exegesis of v. 4, which enjoins God to “appear” at the head of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh, Rashi asserts that deliverance is God's gift, granted even to the unworthy through God's mercy and the merits of the patriarchs. Rashi suggests that these three are named as examples of men who, though they were wicked, were granted victories over Israel's enemies. Note, however, that his citations relating to Ephraim and Manasseh also recall instances of Israel's near-annihilation.Google Scholar

84 A calculation of the length of the Egyptian exile derived from Seder Olam according to Gruber, , Rashi's Commentary (n. 51 above), 379 n. 12.Google Scholar

85 Rashi parses “a great and bitter cry” to yield the three tears.Google Scholar

86 Rashi cites only 40b, and reads it as “If you will be remorseful …” rather than “but when you break loose” (trans. Gruber, , Rashi's Commentary [n. 51 above], 377).Google Scholar

87 See Rashi at Gen. 27:40 and Targum Onkelos, ad loc.Google Scholar

88 Esau's regret at his loss has merited him temporal wealth and power; if God has so rewarded his three tears, how much more will God do for Israel — this is R. Abin's assertion in Midrash on Psalms ad loc., but Rashi does not cite it.Google Scholar

89 Trans. Gruber, , Rashi's Commentary (n. 51 above), 378.Google Scholar

90 Ibid., 379.Google Scholar

91 MS at fol. 95r^b: “Contra has captivitates tres; triplex remedium ponitur. Et pro modo gravaminis; magis ac magis crescit et cumulatur oracio. Unde et contra primam captivitatem que gravis factam per azael; orat sic. Deus converte nos. Ubi apud hebreos unum solum de dei nominibus ponitur scilicet heloyim. Contra captivitatem secundam que gravior. facta per antiochum ephiphanen; orat sic. Deus exercituum converte nos. Ubi apud hebreos duo dei ponuntur nomina scilicet eloyim et sabaoth. Contra terciam vero captivitatem que ceteris gravior facta per ydumeam; orat in fine psalmi sic. Domine deus excerituum converte nos. Ubi apud hebreos tria dei ponuntur nomina. Scilicet adonay. eloim. et sabaoth. Ecce quomodo secundum quantitatem graviminum; gradatum crevit; et quasi augmentatum est oracionis remedium.” Google Scholar

92 Proximitas is defined in Lewis & Short as “nearness” but they offer “near relationship” as a tropological meaning derived from Ovid and Quintilian.Google Scholar

93 Gen. 36:12, 16; 1 Chron. 1:36. The tradition of Shabbat Zakhor remembers Amalek before Purim.Google Scholar

94 Herbert's text, Ps. 79 [80] titulus, fol. 95r^a, reads: “Unde scriptum est. ‘Principium gencium; amalech.’ [Num. 24:20] hoc est amalech qui de esau; primi inter gentes contra israel fratrem suum insurrexerunt. Sicut scriptum est. ‘Venit amalech et pugnabat contra israel et post numquam desiit.’ [Exod. 17:8] Unde ad ydumeam per prophetam dominus. ‘Et scies quia ego dominus; eo quod fueris inimicus sempiternus.’ [Ezek. 35:4b–5a] Ecce esau israelem persequentis diuturnitas. Nichilominus et proximitas; eo quod super fratrem. esau israelem fit persecutus. Unde dominus ad ydumeam. ‘Et cum sanguinem oderis; Sanguis te persequetur’ [Ezek. 35:6b].Google Scholar

95 On the messianic traditions associated with this passage, see Patai, Raphael, The Messiah Texts (Detroit, 1979), 173, and Klausner, Joseph, The Messianic Idea in Israel , trans. Stinespring, W. F. (New York, 1955), 30–32.Google Scholar

96 Recall that we have no contemporary exemplars of Rashi's commentary and can only conjecture about its contents.Google Scholar

97 Other examples from Herbert can be found at Pss. 5:7; 68:27, 41:1; 136:7; 149:9.Google Scholar

98 E.g. MS at Ps. 5:7 (fol. 7v^a): “odisti omnes operantes iniquitatem perdes loquentes non quilibet sed mendates mendacium virum sanguinum et dolosum abominabitur Dominus. Virum sanguinum et dolosum generaliter vocat … esau et semen eius qui fratrem suum israel sine cause ex mero odio persequebatur et frequenter in dolo ipsius sanguinem effundere solet….” Google Scholar

99 Cohen, , “Esau as Symbol” (n. 69 above); Rosenthal, , “Anti-Christian Polemic” (n. 81 above), 124.Google Scholar

100 Gruber suggests that Rashi alluded to the Rhineland massacres of 1096 stemming from the First Crusade in his comments on Ps. 48:13 (227–29); for further discussion of this possibility, see n. 83 above.Google Scholar

101 The quotation is in Cassiodorus, , Expositio Psalmorum , ad loc.Google Scholar

102 Herbert is always heartened when the litterator agrees with the ecclesiasticus. Loewe, Raphael refers to Herbert's “inward glow of satisfaction” on these occasions; “Herbert of Bosham's Commentary” (n. 27 above), 56.Google Scholar

103 “Ad terciam deinceps que ceteris gravior quia sceleracior erat; israelis captivitatem seu pocius persecucionem; accedit. ex odio fraterna orta. que inter iacob et esau fuerat. Et loquitur de israel sub methafora vinee. dicens quomodo vinea illa de egypto translata et eiectis gentibus quasi aspersis et perniciosis germinibus extyrpatis; ut terra promissionis plantata fuerit” (fol. 96r^a).Google Scholar

104 This is an ancient association, perhaps initiated in the Psalter. See also Targum Onkelos at Gen. 49:10–12.Google Scholar

105 Herbert renders the verse as: “A boar from a forest uprooted or devastated (effodit vel vastavit) and all the beasts of the field feed on it.” The variant effodit is Herbert's. Note that there is a debate in the Midrash on Psalms about “uprooting” the vine versus pruning it: uprooting would kill Israel; pruning would enhance her growth.Google Scholar

106 MS at Ps. 79:14 (fol. 96r^b–v^a): “Sicut per methaforam israel nominavit vineam; ita nunc per methaforam aprium silve nominat; vinee dissipatorem. scilicet esau. Quem per bestiam silve significat; quia venator erat. Sicut et supra. Increpa bestiam calami [Ps. 67:31]. Et per talem bestiam scilicet aprium; ideo designat eum; quia ferus et inmundus erat. Vel ut hebrei tradunt. ideo comparatur aprio; quia aper ungulam findit; Et ita ex parte immundus. Sed non ruminat. Et sic immundus. Talis esau quantum ad patres ex quibus ortus bonus et mundus. alias vero ex se immundus. Effodit dicit quod est apri proprium. Et monencia agri. qualia sunt reptilia; depastae sunt eam. hii possunt accipi filii esau.” Google Scholar

107 His translation is unprecedented: “et funda quod plantavit dextera tua et super filium confirmasti tibi” as opposed to Jerome's “et radicem quam plantavit dextera tua et filium quem confirmasti tibi” (emphasis added). Herbert follows Rashi and clearly intends super to mean “over,” as in “passed over.” Google Scholar

108 Cf. Lombard, Peter, In Totum Psalterium Commentarii (PL 191:35–1296) and the Glossa Ordinaria, ad loc.Google Scholar

109 “Orat hoc; ut dominus vineam illam fundet ne scilicet moveri possit; quam plantavit dextera eius et quam ipse confirmavit sibi; super filium id est super esau quem pater suis ysaac quasi ex amoris quodam privilegio; filium appellare consueverat. Unde scriptum est. quod ysaac amabat esau et rebecca diligebat iacob. Et ex hoc amoris privilegio ysaac esau; crebro filium appellasse legitur. ut vocavitque esau filium suum maiorem. Et dixit ei filii tui. Et infra. Tu es filius meus esau; Et in hunc modum. Dominus vero vineam suam quam de egypto transtulit filios scilicet israel; confirmavit sibi super filium. scilicet super esau; quando a domino rebecce responsum est; quod maior minori erat serviturus. esau scilicet iacob” (fol. 96v^a).Google Scholar

110 “Dominus tunc confirmavit sibi esau et roboravit; quando israel a deo apostavit. Et sicut per idolatrium et per multa alia legem deum transgressus est. Et tunc super israel propter peccata sua; esau a domino confirmatus et roboratus est; cum prius esset inferior. Iuxta quod ipsi esau ysaac pater eius predixerat. Tempusque veniet cum excucias et solvas iugum eius de cervicibus eius” (fol. 96v^b–97r^a).Google Scholar

111 In his Genesis commentary at 27:40, Rashi similarly states that Esau and his descendants will live to see Jacob and his sons transgress, so it seems Rashi is reproducing Targum Onkelos or Midrash Rabbah: Genesis, where Rabbi Huna is quoted as saying, “If Jacob is meritorious, thou shalt serve him, if not thou shalt destroy him,” while R. Jose b. R. Halfutha explains, “If thou seest Jacob thy brother throw off the yoke of Torah from his neck, then decree his destruction and thou wilt become his master” ( Midrash Rabbah: Genesis II , trans. Freedman, H. [London, 1939], LXVII.7, p. 611).Google Scholar

112 Compare Abraham ibn Ezra and Rashbam on Gen. 27:40, the casting off of the yoke, and their references to “cry” and its analogue at Ps. 55:3. Neither of these exegetes agrees with Rashi's interpretation, but both clarify its philological underpinnings. Ibn Ezra wrote: “tarid (‘thou shalt break loose’) is similar to arid (‘I cry out’) in I cry out (arid) in my complaint (Ps. 54 [55].3). According to this interpretation the meaning of our clause is: and it shall come to pass when thou shall cry out, then God will pity you.” It is not clear how Herbert would have learned about this aspect of the rabbinical thinking on Esau and Jacob. See Ibn Ezra's Commentary on the Pentateuch, trans. Norman Strickman, H. and Silver, Arthur M. (New York, 1988), 268–72, and Lockshin, Martin I., Rabbi Samuel ben Meir's Commentary on Genesis: An Annotated Translation (Lewiston, N.Y., 1989), 159.Google Scholar

113 A possible meaning for unica, although rare; it can also mean “unparalleled, unique.” Google Scholar

114 “Psalmus eciam iste secundum quod et ab ecclesiasticis interpretatus est; de unica illa et ultima vinee vastacione que per vaspasianum titum facta est; accipitur. quorum uterque aper silve vocari potest. quia de gentilitate venientes; feri et superbi erant. Que captivitas quia ceteris gravior; tripliciter hic et semper cum augmento dei nominum; israelis hic oratur conversio; usque ad mundi vesperam differenda” (fol. 97r^a).Google Scholar

115 See Psalm 12 titulus: Herbert identifies the fourth kingdom as the Rome of Vespasian and Titus. Ad loc., Rashi does not specify the kingdoms' names.Google Scholar

116 Typically, Christian commentators also cite Psalm 58 [59] in this connection: “Convertentur ad vesperam, et famem patientur ut canes; et circuibunt civitatem.” Significantly, Herbert does not discuss the conversion of the Jews at Psalm 58. Rather, he follows Rashi and attributes the events of the psalm to their biblical context in 1 Samuel: the psalm is about David's flight from Saul.Google Scholar

117 Also demonstrated in Herbert's commentary on Psalm 41 [42]. There Herbert argues that the psalm speaks prophetically of Israel's captivities under Babylon, Greece, and “Edom.” This data is supplied by Herbert himself, amplifying Rashi. He follows Rashi closely in the latter's analysis of the stag's “cries” mentioned in v. 2. Rashi suggests the deer cries out in her birth pangs. Herbert goes a step further and compares the hind in her birth pangs to Israel's current anguish: “Et istud de cerva sicut et illud prius de cervo; presenti israelis captivi comparacioni congruit qui in captivitatibus velut inter paturitionis angustias; quasi cerva mugiens ad dominum clamare non cessabat” (fol. 43v^a). Herbert probably learned the comparison between Israel and the hind from Rashi, who points out the likeness at Psalm 22, “the congregation of Israel is ‘like a loving doe.’” Google Scholar

118 Fol. 16r^b–v^a: “Hoc testimonio contra iudeos magister utitur ut ostenderet ipsis ex ipsis salutem fore. dicit enim ‘quia cecitas ex parte contigit in israel. donec plenitudo gencium intraret; et sic omnis israel salvus fieret. sicut scriptum est, “Veniet ex syon qui eripie^at et avertat impietatem a iacob’” [Rom. 11:26–Is. 59:20–21]. hoc est quod hic sub interrogacione legitur. quis veniens ex syon id est ex iudeis. dabit salutem israel Quasi aliquis scilicet messias. Et tunc quando dominus per eum reduxerit et cetera. Sed queri potest de qua captivitate populi reducenda per illum qui veniet ex syon. id est per regem nostram messiam; loquatur hic psalmus. an de captivitate actuali an de spirituali. Et potest dici quod de utraque et de actuali sive corporali qua nunc per terras dispersistus et opprimatur ubique; et de spirituali; per messiam reducentur. quando sicut alibi prophetici psalmus testatur; ‘convertentur ad vesperam et famem patientur ut canes.’ Ad quod et magister sicut supra posuimus; hoc psalmi testimonio usus est.” Google Scholar

119 Unlike Christians before and after him, he did not maintain that against Judaism Christianity offered a “realized” eschatology. Cf. Peter Lombard on Ps. 79 [80]: 18 (PL 191:766): “Super virum dexterae tuae, id est filium Virginis. Grande sacramentum hic notatur, et magnum munus Dei ostenditur, quia tandiu salus Israel potuit dubitari, donee Christus venit; ‘sed tunc completa est promissio,’ ne ultra ab eo discedat Ecclesia, sponso conjuncta.” See also Cassiodorus, ad loc. Google Scholar

120 See Gorday, Peter, Principles of Patristic Exegesis: Romans 9–11 in Origen, John Chrysostom, and Augustine, Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, 4 (New York, 1983).Google Scholar

121 Lotter, Friedrich, “The Position of the Jews in Early Cistercian Exegesis and Preaching,” in From Witness to Witchcraft: Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian Thought , ed. Cohen, Jeremy (Wiesbaden, 1996), 163–85.Google Scholar

122 William of St. Thierry, Exposition on the Epistle to the Romans , trans. Hasbrouck, J. B., ed. Anderson, John D., Cistercian Fathers Series, 27 (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1980), 195–96. The belief that Elijah's preaching would convert the Jews to Christianity before the coming of the Antichrist was derived from Mal. 4:5–6, Ecclus. 48:10, and Matt. 17:1; see also Augustine, , City of God, 20.29–30. The tradition that Elijah and Enoch together would usher in the conversion of the Jews was probably derived from the Latin Tiburtine Sibyl. See McGinn, Bernard, Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages (New York, 1979, repr. 1998), 49–50.Google Scholar

123 In Sermon 79, Bernard proclaims, “The savior will return to the place from which he had come, so that the remnants of Israel might be saved [ut reliquiae Israel salvae fiant]…. Let the church hold firmly onto the salvation which the Jews lost; she holds it until the plenitude of the Gentiles may enter in, and thus all Israel may be saved [sic omnis Israel salvus fiat]” (trans. Cohen, , Living Letters of the Law [n. 49 above], 233). Latin text interpolated from Sancti Bernardi opera: Sermones super Cantica Canticorum , ed. Leclercq, J., Talbot, C. H., and Rochais, H. M. (Rome, 1957), 2:275.Google Scholar

124 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs 1, Sermon 14, trans. Walsh, Kilian (Spencer, Mass., 1971), 98–99. The Latin of the last line reads, “Sed nec repellet in finem, reliquias salvaturus” (Sancti Bernardi opera: Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, 1:76–77).Google Scholar

125 Lotter, , “Position of the Jews,” 171. On Abelard's attitudes toward Jews and on this issue specifically, see also LeMoine, Michel, “Abélard et les Juifs,” Revue des études juives 153 (1994): 253–67.Google Scholar

126 “Et sic tandem, id est post eorum introitum, ‘omnis Israel,’ secundum singulas videlicet tribus. Unde multi convertentur in fine, praedicatione Enoch et Eliae; non tamen omnes, cum de antichristo Veritas eis dicat, ‘Alius in nomine suo veniet, illum suscipietis’ [Jn. 5:43], ut nec in fine mundi sicut nec in adventu Christi omnes Iudaei convertentur sed solae Domini ‘reliquiae’” (Petri Abaelardi Opera Theologica, I: Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos , ed. Buytaert, E. M., CCM, 11 [Turnhout, 1966], 265, lines 307–17).Google Scholar

127 Lombard, Peter, In Epistola ad Romanos , 11 (PL 191:1490B–C): “Ecce ostensum est in his verbis praedictis, quare pars Judaeorum excaecata est, scilicet suo vitio, et propter gentes, et pars illuminata, scilicet gratia electionis, et propter patres. Etsi enim quasi de eisdem loquatur, dicendo, inimici et dilecti, quia una gens erat omnium illorum; alii tamen sunt inimici Dei, alii charissimi et dilecti. Sine poenitentia enim. Quasi dicat: Dico quod secundum electionem, et propter patres sunt salvandi, quia non sunt vocati ea vocatione qua multi non praesciti vocantur, qui tamen pereunt, de qua dictum est: Multi vocati, etc. (Matth. XXII), sed illa qua vocantur electi, ad quam qui pertinent omnes sunt docibiles Dei, nec potest eorum quisquam dicere, credidi, ut sic vocarer, quia praevenit eum misericordia Dei, qua vocatus est ut crederet. Quae vocatio est sine poenitentia, id est sine mutatione, quia qui audit a Patre venit ad Filium, qui non perdit quidquam de omni dato; quisquis vero perit, non inde fuit: qui inde est, omnino non perit. Propter quod Joannes ait: A nobis exierunt, sed ex nobis non fuerunt (I Joan. II). Fuerunt enim de multitudine vocatorum, sed non de paucitate electorum. Si enim fuissent de nobis, mansissent utique nobiscum.” Google Scholar

128 For a discussion of Herbert's interactions with various Cistercian houses, see Goodwin, , “Herbert of Bosham's Commentary” (n. 27 above), 33–49 and 56–66.Google Scholar

129 See the transcription of his dedicatory letter to Peter in Smalley, , “A Commentary” (n. 3 above), 31–32.Google Scholar

130 Philip Augustus of France had expelled the Jews from the royal demesne in 1182 and readmitted them in 1198.Google Scholar

131 Quoted in Lotter, “The Position of the Jews” (n. 121 above), 182. Note however, that Adam does not express any charitable motivations with regard to the Jews; he goes on to accuse them of obduracy and hardheartedness. If one wastes time arguing with them, furthermore, one risks corrupting the truth itself: “Absit ergo ne incorrupta veritas ad sui defensionem corruptoribus egeat!” (Ep. 21, Ad amicum [PL 211:654A–659C]). He also, like Bernard of Clairvaux, uses the Jews chiefly as foils. Both Cistercians complained that some Christians behaved worse than the Jews. See the discussion in Lotter, “The Position of the Jews.” Google Scholar

132 Working from the instances of metaphor and prophecy noted by Rashi, Herbert finds in the literal meaning of the psalms a vision of God's work in history large enough to include both Christians and Jews. He repeatedly acknowledges that Rashi has construed a psalm metaphorically (as in Psalm 44 [45]). He also describes Rashi as having constructed an allegorical reading, applying the technical language of Christian exegesis to his presumably “literal” source. Finally, at least once Herbert acknowledges that the hebreorum litteratores were capable of discerning a psalm's spiritual meaning: at Ps. 121 [122]:3, which he says Jews and Christians alike attribute to the celestial Jerusalem (MS fol. 142v^b). For a fuller discussion of this point, see Goodwin, , “Herbert of Bosham's Commentary” (n. 27 above), 275–99.Google Scholar